California Marriage Amendment to be decided

[Karlis]

The legal battle to determine the constitutionality of one-man, one-woman marriage began in a San Francisco federal courthouse today.Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com, said the future of marriage may be riding on this court case.

Read more...

This Court Case does not seem to have had much coverage in the News Media, as far as I can see. Here is another, more detailed article, dated January 09, 2010, titled:

Gay Marriage Civil Rights Trial to Begin in San Francisco Federal Court Monday [Monday – that’s today.]

Here are excerpts from the above article:

First, it's important to note that California's attorney general, Jerry Brown, has taken the extraordinary step of refusing to defend the newly amended state constitution. Instead, Brown has taken the side of those who oppose the amendment banning gay marriage, arguing that the state cannot deprive a disfavored group of such a right even through a voter-approved amendment. This Los Angeles Times piece LA Times article here from March 2009 does an excellent job of sketching out Brown's argument, as well as other sides of the dispute.)

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, also named in the suit, has joined the state AG in refusing to defend Prop 8 at trial.

...

The Prop 8 defenders' argument is likely to be fairly simple:

California voted to amend the state constitution explicitly to prohibit same-sex marriage. "That is the beginning and end of this case," they've previously said.

Not so, said Boies in a brief interview with the Lit Daily on Friday. Boies, who was in San Francisco preparing witnesses, said that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution," he told us. "The Court has also held that it is unconstitutional to discriminate against homosexuals."

We asked about the opposition's argument. Shouldn't the will of the California voters be respected? Boies said absolutely not, at least in this instance. "The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to say that no majority, not a 52 percent majority, not a 99 percent majority, can deprive a minority of certain fundamental rights," he said.

...

The trial, which will be televised and posted to YouTube, is expected to last about three weeks. We'll be watching this one closely, but for minute-by-minute coverage, you can check out Twitter posts by reporter Dan Levine, who's covering the trial for our sister publication The Recorder. Source

[danielost]

i love california. evertime the people vote against something someone on the otherside decides that the court not the people should decide. in the 80's it was about insurance.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Of course having the judiciary try to rule over the people's RIGHT to representation on issues of behavior is historic but...

Courts already have a long history of usurping the rights of the People. Nothing new would be happening in that regard.

The more the left-wing trys to FORCE their morality on others the more backlash they will see. The left-wing is making a huge mistake on this issue.

Edited January 12, 2010 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[danielost]

Of course having the judiciary try to rule over the people's RIGHT to representation on issues of behavior is historic but...

Courts already have a long history of usurping the rights of the People. Nothing new would be happening in that regard.

The more the left-wing trys to FORCE their morality on others the more backlash they will see. The left-wing is making a huge mistake on this issue.

i am rethinking this maybe they should let this through and then we will see how long before churchs are forced to close or marry same sex couples.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

i am rethinking this maybe they should let this through and then we will see how long before churchs are forced to close or marry same sex couples.

Why should it ONLY matter what churches are forced to do?

This Court decision would be meant to FORCE EVERYONE to march lockstep with left-wing morality. Not just churches.

Edited January 12, 2010 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[Cadetak]

i am rethinking this maybe they should let this through and then we will see how long before churchs are forced to close or marry same sex couples.

LOL!

oh are you serious? Can't really tell, I'm assuming it's a parody joke because who would actually use the silly 'slippery slope' argument and leaps of logic like that.

[Cadetak]

Why should it ONLY matter what churches are forced to do?

This Court decision would be meant to FORCE EVERYONE to march lockstep with left-wing morality. Not just churches.

Another good joke...no wait I'm sure your serious...

Force? What is being forced on you here? Gay Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with you, it is about the marriage of homosexuals and has nothing to do with changing or altering the state of heterosexual marriage.

Left-Wing Morality? I do not believe equality is a 'left-wing'...I find it simply American.

[Vampwitchenstein]

This horrible feeling had been creeping over me lately. It feels so much like we are going BACKWARDS as far as racial, gender and Gay equality, tolerance and understanding go. Take all the 'terrorist' and unfortunately, Islamic/Muslim/Middle Eastern/terrorist countries people and religions out of it, and I still see slipping backwards. I can feel it in peoples voices, see it on their faces, read it in their veiled words.

It is unsettling and scary to me. Why can't we elevate our minds and intelligence PAST this? I do not understand.

[danielost]

Another good joke...no wait I'm sure your serious...

Force? What is being forced on you here? Gay Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with you, it is about the marriage of homosexuals and has nothing to do with changing or altering the state of heterosexual marriage.

Left-Wing Morality? I do not believe equality is a 'left-wing'...I find it simply American.

california people voted NO to same sex marriage. those who don't think that the people are smart enough to know what they want, like you, are now going throught the courts to force this issue onto those people who are toooooooooooo stupid to think the same way as you and those who are for same sex marriage.

[preacherman76]

Personaly I think everyone has this wrong. People should not need state aproval to be married. The contract should be between 2 people, thier is no need for a third party to be involved. Marrage license's originaly started for folks of mixed races to marry, and it wasnt easy to get the blessings of the state for it. But everyone else was allowed to marry without thier consent. Like everything else they pushed thier way into everyones lives. The very idea of state sponcered marrage is unconstitutional.

[Cadetak]

california people voted NO to same sex marriage.

I'm not disputing that nor is the OP. The question and debate in california now is what is and what is not constitutional.

those who don't think that the people are smart enough to know what they want, like you, are now going throught the courts to force this issue onto those people who are toooooooooooo stupid to think the same way as you and those who are for same sex marriage.

First, I have never encountered an argument against the legalization of gay marriage that was actually rational. I have never lost a debate on the subject on any level and in any regard...constantly and consistently, supporters break the logic and very characters of those who oppose. I am not stating that the 52% of Californians that supported Prop 8(or anybody anywhere who is against legal recognition of gay marriage) are stupid nor I am stating that I am smarter then any of them...I am stating that in argument their position on this specific subject is severally flawed and simply broken.

Second, this is the United States of America we pride ourselves on freedom and equality...the wording is there in our declaration of independence, our constitutions, both domestic and foreign policies,...all men created equal. To suppress a minority, to deny them something without right, and the general prejudice of the overall issue is simply and surely in my opinion unamerican.

[Cadetak]

Personaly I think everyone has this wrong. People should not need state aproval to be married. The contract should be between 2 people, thier is no need for a third party to be involved. Marrage license's originaly started for folks of mixed races to marry, and it wasnt easy to get the blessings of the state for it. But everyone else was allowed to marry without thier consent. Like everything else they pushed thier way into everyones lives. The very idea of state sponcered marrage is unconstitutional.

I would agree considering that I do not necessarily see the need to recognize any marriage whatsoever. However there is argument to be had that for legal reason the state needs to recognize marriage for various reasons like taxes, finances, inherentence, child custody, etc. Also considering that choosing not to legally recognize any marriage of any type isn't on the table and won't likely ever be we have to work with the situation we have.

All or none...but none isn't a realistic choice.

[Cadetak]

This horrible feeling had been creeping over me lately. It feels so much like we are going BACKWARDS as far as racial, gender and Gay equality, tolerance and understanding go. Take all the 'terrorist' and unfortunately, Islamic/Muslim/Middle Eastern/terrorist countries people and religions out of it, and I still see slipping backwards. I can feel it in peoples voices, see it on their faces, read it in their veiled words.

It is unsettling and scary to me. Why can't we elevate our minds and intelligence PAST this? I do not understand.

The core of it lies in the base animal instinct of fearing that which is different and rejecting that which we do not understand...and old survival mechanism that we apparently never outgrew.

[preacherman76]

california people voted NO to same sex marriage. those who don't think that the people are smart enough to know what they want, like you, are now going throught the courts to force this issue onto those people who are toooooooooooo stupid to think the same way as you and those who are for same sex marriage.

Yea but bro, thats mob rule. Thats the worst form of government thier can be. Why do we wish to control the minds of others through legislation? That isnt freedom. Im against gay marrage as much as anyone, but when we begin to tell people what they can and cant do with thier property (this case being thier minds) where all rights originate, Then how can we claim to be free? Seems the right wants to control peoples minds, while the left want to control peoples money. Both are profoundly wrong.

[preacherman76]

I would agree considering that I do not necessarily see the need to recognize any marriage whatsoever. However there is argument to be had that for legal reason the state needs to recognize marriage for various reasons like taxes, finances, inherentence, child custody, etc. Also considering that choosing not to legally recognize any marriage of any type isn't on the table and won't likely ever be we have to work with the situation we have.

All or none...but none isn't a realistic choice.

This only proves the point further. We are not a republic, or a democracy. We live in near full communism. The state has control of everything in our lifes. This is not how anyone invisioned life here 200 years ago.

[Cadetak]

This only proves the point further. We are not a republic, or a democracy. We live in near full communism. The state has control of everything in our lifes. This is not how anyone invisioned life here 200 years ago.

I would disagree on the communism part but I see where your coming from, however I think this issue is primarily a social issue and not a political one. I do not believe the state is attempting to control anything here but is simply attempting to do what is right under the constitution and law as well as the desire of the people. I believe this issue is driven primarily by the people....if it was soley up to the powers that be then it would be legalized nationwide...not because of ethics or equality but because there is a fair bit of money to made in the legalization of gay marriage(thats state revenue).

It's not like anybody would want to actually go back to 1810 either though.

[preacherman76]

I would disagree on the communism part but I see where your coming from, however I think this issue is primarily a social issue and not a political one. I do not believe the state is attempting to control anything here but is simply attempting to do what is right under the constitution and law as well as the desire of the people. I believe this issue is driven primarily by the people....if it was soley up to the powers that be then it would be legalized nationwide...not because of ethics or equality but because there is a fair bit of money to made in the legalization of gay marriage(thats state revenue).

It's not like anybody would want to actually go back to 1810 either though.

Thats the thing, if we really were free, there would be no need for legislation in this matter. The very idea is the wrong way to go. Aside from protecting freedoms, the states shouldnt have a say in anything.

Id rather be in any time, if it meant I could be free, then to be here now.

[Jack_of_Blades]

Yea but bro, thats mob rule. Thats the worst form of government thier can be. Why do we wish to control the minds of others through legislation? That isnt freedom. Im against gay marrage as much as anyone, but when we begin to tell people what they can and cant do with thier property (this case being thier minds) where all rights originate, Then how can we claim to be free? Seems the right wants to control peoples minds, while the left want to control peoples money. Both are profoundly wrong.

I'm on the completely opposite side of this issue than you, but I couldn't agree more with this post.

i am rethinking this maybe they should let this through and then we will see how long before churchs are forced to close or marry same sex couples.

Someone please tell me that he wasn't serious

This Court decision would be meant to FORCE EVERYONE to march lockstep with left-wing morality.

This has nothing to do with being left, I sure as hell don't consider myself left, it's about equal rights for all.

california people voted NO to same sex marriage. those who don't think that the people are smart enough to know what they want

Just like the south in the early 1900's eh? I mean clearly those people knew what was best

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jack_of_Blades

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

This is not about equal rights for all. It is about using the Court for forcing the treatment of certain behavior on all of society. This is an attempt by the left-wing to deny those who disagree with them on this issue a right to representation. There already are lawsuits forcing the private sector to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality and some people oppose this use of government to force this left-wing morality. By using the Court the left-wing is trying to remove the rights of those who disagree from having any power to legislate on the issue.

[preacherman76]

This is not about equal rights for all. It is about using the Court for forcing the treatment of certain behavior on all of society. This is an attempt by the left-wing to deny those who disagree with them on this issue a right to representation. There already are lawsuits forcing the private sector to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality and some people oppose this use of government to force this left-wing morality. By using the Court the left-wing is trying to remove the rights of those who disagree from having any power to legislate on the issue.

No one has a right to representation when it comes to another mans property, or his will for that property.

Lets say you me and 5 other people each own equaly sized individual pieces of land. Your land is the only one that has water. I come to you and ask you to buy that land. For what ever reason you say no, you choose not to sell me that land. So I gather all the land owners, and propose that you should have to divide your land among us all, leaveing only a small fraction of the land to you. Now you have a vote, cause this is a "democracy" but obviously your property is going to be divided. Would you call this fair? Would you call this freedom? Certainly not. This is mob rule. Well the same applies here. You dont have a right to denie what another man wants for his property, this case its not land thats property, but is this mans mind. The state doesnt have the right to grant anyone marrage, it is given to us by our creator. No piece of paper, no politition, no law book gives us this right, but its inherited. Other wise it wouldnt be a right, but a priviledge. God himself granted everyman the freedom to choose, or free will. No man has the right or priviledge to take that from you.

[+HerNibs]

No one has a right to representation when it comes to another mans property, or his will for that property.

Lets say you me and 5 other people each own equaly sized individual pieces of land. Your land is the only one that has water. I come to you and ask you to buy that land. For what ever reason you say no, you choose not to sell me that land. So I gather all the land owners, and propose that you should have to divide your land among us all, leaveing only a small fraction of the land to you. Now you have a vote, cause this is a "democracy" but obviously your property is going to be divided. Would you call this fair? Would you call this freedom? Certainly not. This is mob rule. Well the same applies here. You dont have a right to denie what another man wants for his property, this case its not land thats property, but is this mans mind. The state doesnt have the right to grant anyone marrage, it is given to us by our creator. No piece of paper, no politition, no law book gives us this right, but its inherited. Other wise it wouldnt be a right, but a priviledge. God himself granted everyman the freedom to choose, or free will. No man has the right or priviledge to take that from you.

While we have different opinions on the "creator", I applaud your post.

Nibs

[preacherman76]

This is not about equal rights for all. It is about using the Court for forcing the treatment of certain behavior on all of society. This is an attempt by the left-wing to deny those who disagree with them on this issue a right to representation. There already are lawsuits forcing the private sector to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality and some people oppose this use of government to force this left-wing morality. By using the Court the left-wing is trying to remove the rights of those who disagree from having any power to legislate on the issue.

This is the part I will agree with you on, under the same standards. We have a right, not a priviledge, but a right to worship as we see fit. No man has the right to tell you you must perform a gay marrage. Its a violation of your property, in this case again, the property is your mind, as well as physical property. Or land/building. The constitution made these things so simple, I dont understand why there is so much confusion. It should be mandatory for children to study the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the declaration of Independance, in depth. Every year, starting from first grade.

[preacherman76]

While we have different opinions on the "creator", I applaud your post.

Nibs

I took a 8 hour online constitutional course the other day. It has opened my mind in ways I never thought possible. Now Im hooked, and am consuming every bit of information regarding it as I can.

[+HerNibs]

I took a 8 hour online constitutional course the other day. It has opened my mind in ways I never thought possible. Now Im hooked, and am consuming every bit of information regarding it as I can.

Good for you!!!

Nibs

[The Silver Thong]

Agreed, good post Preacherman!